Agenda item

Two storey 5 bed detached dwelling, involving demolition of existing dwelling.

Recommendation: Approval subject to a S106 Agreement

The Chairman introduced the item and explained that the scheme had been previously considered at 30 October 2013 North Planning Committee meeting where most of the matters had been resolved. However, it had been established that a flood report had not been published to the public website in error and so had been subject to an additional consultation period.

The Chairman explained that in this particular case, he had used his discretion to allow the petitioners that spoke at 30 October 2013 meeting to speak again on the flood report without a petition. It was noted that was highly unusual as the Constitution dictated that petitions were required to address Planning Committees.

Officers introduced the report and explained that a geotechnical report had not been available to the public when the application was considered at 30 October 2013 meeting. As a result a further period of consultation was undertaken and the application considered at this meeting would only focus on this consultation. It was noted that on the basis of all the information considered at both 30 October and 7 January 2014 meetings, the Council’s Flood and Water Management Specialist considered that there was no material harm.

Referring to the addendum sheet, Officers highlighted that the increase of the footprint from 380 square metres to 416 square metres did not alter their view. In relation to Condition 10, it was noted that the word ‘surface’ should be deleted from point 1 and that three additional pieces of correspondence had been received since the agenda had been published which were summarised in the addendum sheet.

In accordance with the Constitution the petitioner addressed the Committee and the following points were raised:

• The application was error prone, inconsistent and should be rejected.
• The Conditions in neighbouring gardens had been ignored by the structural engineering report.
• The report had ignored the impact of the removal of 21 mature trees from the site.
• The report had not investigated the cumulative impact of the scheme including the impact other basements locally and also the water run off down the slope from Copse Wood.
• The report did not refer to how an underground trench would be maintained as these systems would become blocked over time. Therefore, trenches would be ineffective.
• The report failed to apply the extra 30% climate change factor on the general increase in water run-off
• The application mentioned that soak ways would be used. However, these would be inappropriate for the development owing to the strata of thick clay which would require very deep excavation.
• The Council had still failed to demonstrate in the current report how the major reasons for refusal from the first application (regarding size and bulk) had been mitigated.
• An application at Number 7 Nicholas Way had been recommended for refusal on the grounds of size, scale, bulk, siting, design and appearance although this had a smaller footprint than the proposal at 15 Nicholas Way. Therefore, why had a much larger proposal been recommended for approval?
• At 30^th October meeting, the Committee made a number of incorrect assumptions about the impact of the development based on the footprint only, and did not take into account the height of the proposal.

For clarification, the Committee asked the petitioner to explain their comments about the trench system. The petitioner reiterated their concerns that the gravel trenches would become blocked over time by water borne debris and a maintenance programme could not be implemented as the trenches were located 9 feet below the depth of the basement.

In response, the Council’s Flood and Water Management Specialist confirmed that Officers had considered the ground conditions of neighbouring gardens and undertaken a site visit to number 15 Nicholas Way. The Officer also confirmed that the use of trench systems was considered best practice had been used with success elsewhere.  Noting the concerns about the maintenance of the trenches, the officer explained that these were unlikely to fill up because the trenches were lined with a geo-textile material to stop debris entering the trench system. Officers also commented that their analysis had incorporated the effects of climate change and how surface water run off could be controlled in the future.

A representative of the applicant or agent was invited to address the Committee but opted not to.

Discussing the application the Committee raised a number of points, including the implications of surface run off, the increased footprint of the proposal and the effectiveness of the water tanks incorporated into the design proposals. In response, the Committee were informed that surface water and ground water issues had been taken account of in principle in their recommendations about the scheme but that in many cases, the technical implementation of the scheme remained Building Control matters. In relation to the footprint of the proposal, Officers reiterated their comments from the addendum, namely that the increased footprint did not constitute a reason for the refusal of the scheme.  With regards to the water storage, Officers confirmed that the design was sufficiently large that it would be able to sustain a large scale event and that the design allowed for the gradual discharge of the tanks during a period of dry weather.

It was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote agreed to approve the application with five votes in favour, with one against.

Resolved –

That the application be Approved as per officer recommendation, addendum sheet and the changes listed above.